Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the remarkable efforts and acclamations of the track team from the Chaparrals of O.D. Wyatt High School in Fort Worth, Texas. These fine young men not only won the University Interscholastic League state championships, but left all their fellow competitors behind. Headlining the team is senior sprinter Demario Wesley, who was individually honored by the Fort Worth Star Telegram as the male track athlete of the year. Mr. Wesley placed first in all three events he entered. Just one year after trying to run on an ankle with bone spurs, Wesley won the 100 meter dash in a time of 10.23 seconds, the 200 meter run in a time of 20.74 as well as anchoring the 4x100 meter relay. With Wesley taking the leading position, Wyatt won the state competition by a 26 point margin. Wyatt's most impressive accomplishment came in the 4x100 meter relay victory when Milton Wesley, Monte Clopton, Michael Franklin and Demario Wesley broke their own national record. I would like to recognize the extraordinary efforts of this exemplary team as well as their coach Lee Williams whose hard work has inspired his team to victory. These young men have not only set a standard for future Wyatt boys track teams, they have proven that next years stars are currently in our schools and in our homes. Mr. Speaker, let us join in congratulating O.D. Wyatt High School on their accomplishments at the state track championships.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and I had a discussion about an hour ago on the rule, and at that time I urged the gentleman to not engage in a public hanging before the facts are in. And I would repeat that at this point. Mr. Speaker, it is a foregone conclusion that the House will vote today to create a new Select Committee to investigate the allegations that a U.S. company transferred sensitive technology to the People's Republic of China that could endanger national security and that campaign contributions played a role in obtaining the licenses necessary for U.S. companies to launch their satellites on Chinese missiles. I support the creation of the Select Committee. But I do so with some reservations. Mr. Speaker, my reservations are shared by my Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Rules which has original jurisdiction to create this Select Committee. In our committee report minority views, we have laid out our concerns about the structure of the Select Committee and the decision-making process that is provided for by the enabling resolution. We are heartened that the designated ranking minority member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) feels that he has reached an understanding with the designated chairman of the Select Committee on several matters that are vitally important to assuring that the Select Committee's work product is viewed as fair and that the rights of the minority have not been ignored. However, Mr. Speaker, there are matters which I do feel compelled to bring to the attention of the House. The Committee on Rules majority states at the outset that they have used the Iran-Contra Select Committee as a model for this Select Committee. While this model bestows extraordinary powers on the chairman, Iran-Contra also stands as a model of bipartisan cooperation and the joint leadership of that committee acted jointly on all matters of procedural concern. The Democratic members of the Committee on Rules hope that the model of bipartisanship on the Iran-Contra Select Committee holds true on this Select Committee. Our fears of abuse, while tempered by the reputation for fairness of the designated chairman of the Select Committee, are based on the experience of the past year and a half. Granting unilateral powers to the chairman of such a serious investigation gives us serious concern, and we hope, for the sake of the integrity of this body and for the finding of truth in this matter, that the assurances that we have been given that the rights of the minority will be protected in this investigative process and that the minority will be consulted on all important matters coming before the Select Committee. This happened during Iran-Contra, and if that Select Committee is to serve as a model for this one, we hope that the same level of bipartisan cooperation would exist over the course of this investigation. Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the unilateral subpoena power, unilateral deposition power, as well as the ability of the Select Committee to gain access to 10 years' worth of tax returns of individuals and entities under investigation by the Select Committee. We are concerned about how this information will be handled, and under what circumstances it will be released to the public. These are all legitimate concerns, but we remain hopeful that the participants in this investigation will realize that if it is tainted by accusations of partisan high-handedness, that any findings and recommendations that may be made will be tainted as well. Finally, Mr. Speaker, my Committee on Rules Democratic colleagues and I are particularly concerned about the breadth and scope of this investigation. This resolution rightfully empowers the Select Committee with the authority to make a full and complete inquiry into not just technology transfers which may have contributed to the enhancement of the offensive capabilities of the People's Republic of China and its effect on the national security concerns of the United States, but other issues relating to export policies and the influence of campaign contributions. These are legitimate areas of investigation, but I am concerned that the authorities granted in this resolution are so broad that the Select Committee could go on working well into the future. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the designated ranking member of the Select Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), has asked that the many other investigations now ongoing suspend their investigations of those matters under the jurisdiction of the Select Committee while it is in operation. This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Select Committee can get its work done and not find the need to go on ad infinitum, and I hope the other committees of the House will cooperate in this matter. We need to find out what has happened and the Select Committee needs to go on about its business and report back to the House as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, I support the creation of the Select Committee, but I do so with an important caveat: If this investigation wanders from the focus of determining the answers to the questions at hand and if some of my colleagues insist upon demagoguing this issue, they risk damaging not only the legitimacy of any of the findings of the committee, they risk damaging the integrity of this institution. I urge the Select Committee to ensure that its investigation is fair and thorough.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman. There is an underlying question here which may well drive this investigation into the next Congress, which of course would have to be authorized by the next Congress. The underlying issue is the concern that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), who is the chairman of the Committee on Rules, has raised for many years about whether we ought to be doing any of this. Of course, the gentleman who is the chairman of the committee has objected to and opposed the transfer of technology which began during Republican administrations. And my concern is that if this committee goes to the fundamental issue of whether we ought to be doing business with China, that is a bottomless pit and that is a matter that could go on for a very long time. There are legitimate differences within the Republican Party on this issue, as there are legitimate differences within the Democratic Party on this issue. So there is the potential for this investigation, even though it must be renewed at the beginning of the next Congress, to go on for a very long time if we go into the underlying foreign policy question of whether we ought to be doing any business with China.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, while the scope of the matter under discussion today is fairly narrow, the resolution itself is very broad. It is possible that this resolution could be used in a future Congress as a means for examining the entire foreign policy of the United States as it relates to China, regardless of whether there was any wrongdoing found by this investigation. I only raise that cautionary flag, as I did in the Committee on Rules, because that is really a legitimate matter to be determined by our foreign policy committees of this Congress, perhaps even by our Select Committee on Intelligence, perhaps by our Committee on National Security, but not necessarily by this Select Committee. Because the gentleman and previous Republican Presidents have a philosophical difference on this issue, and I would hope this Select Committee does not go to that philosophical difference of whether we ought to be engaging China, but simply limits itself to the matters at hand which raise the question of whether there was improper conduct in terms of the implementation of that policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask about the remaining time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Texas is leaving the Chamber. He has just committed that we will complete consideration 7 weeks from today. If I understand what he just said, 7 weeks from today. Mr. Speaker, if the first campaign finance reform rule reported from the Committee on Rules were not proof enough, I bring to my colleagues' attention rule No. 2. This rule is proof positive that the Republican leadership has absolutely no intention of letting Members of the House decide if we do or do not want campaign finance reform this year. This rule assures that the House will never be able to come to a conclusion on this issue despite the assurances of the majority leader that we will do it in the next 7 weeks. In the name of free and open debate the Republican leadership has perverted the process into a cynical exercise. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, just as long as everyone understands what is happening here. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, when I was first learning about rules and procedure in the House, I was told the story of how one European parliament was never able to reach a decision because it did not have the parliamentary device of the previous question. It was unable to end debate, and consequently that parliament failed in its attempt to do its business. It seems to me that this rule puts this body at the dawn of the new millennium in the same boat as was that parliament. We will be unable to reach a decision. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is living up to its promise that the House will consider campaign reform, campaign finance reform, but they are doing that by assuring that the House will consider campaign finance reform a very, very, very long time, and that if we should by chance finish this legislation 7 weeks from now, of course it will be so late in the session that it will be impossible for the other body to act. No longer will the Senate be able to lay sole claim to ownership of the filibuster. The Republican leadership has devised a new and original form of filibuster which we will all be able to participate in over the course of the next 7 weeks at a very minimum. If we awarded points around here for originality, the Republican leadership would certainly rate a 10. But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. The amendments made in order by this rule are totally nongermane to the issue of reforming the campaign finance laws in this country. Let me give my colleagues just a sample of the amendments made in order in the name of free and open debate. First, an amendment which would require unions to report their financial activities by functional category and which would require those reports to be posted on the Internet. Or how about this amendment that would require the President to post on the Internet the name of any passenger on Air Force One or Air Force Two within 30 days of the flight. The rule makes in order many other amendments, but can someone please tell me what this amendment has to do with campaign finance reform? The rule entitles the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to offer an amendment to each and every substitute which seeks to repeal motor voter. The point is, Mr. Speaker, this rule, like the first campaign finance rule, is specifically designed to ensure that the House will never get a clean up or down vote on Shays-Meehan. We will go through the futile exercise of amending 11 substitutes that are germane and 258 nongermane amendments, and only then, after we go through the entire process, will we be able to determine if there is in fact a winner. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this process does not allow for a winner. It makes us all losers. The Republican leadership has kept its promise to allow debate on campaign finance reform, but this process is too clever by half. This is a ruse, and none of us should forget it for a moment. In order that the House might have the opportunity to actually reach a decision it is my intention to oppose the previous question on this resolution. Then, Mr. Speaker, should the House defeat the previous question, it will be my intention to offer a rule which mirrors the rule proposed in the original discharge petition on campaign finance. That rule, of course, was designed to allow the House to actually reach an end to the debate on the question of campaign finance reform. The substitute rule will allow for 1 hour of debate on each of 11 substitutes. It will allow the House to choose under a most-votes win procedure which of the substitutes is a preferred vehicle for further amendment. Once the House makes that choice, there would be 10 hours to consider germane amendments. The rule I propose, Mr. Speaker, would place a reasonable time frame of consideration of campaign finance reform. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member of the House to oppose the previous question and to support the rule which I will offer. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to notice my intention to support an important germane amendment to the Shays-Meehan substitute. As Members who have studied the history of campaign financing are aware, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, it struck down one of the four essential pillars of the campaign legislation passed by the Congress and, as a result, left an unbalanced and unstable package standing. Because the entire act was designed to be a package, when the Court struck down one part, the campaign finance laws were left without an essential component which had been envisioned as critical to making those reforms work. Therefore, it is my strong belief that if we are going to create new campaign finance laws, it is critically important that any legislation should include a nonseverability clause so that the entire package will stand or fall even if one component might later be struck down by the courts. Should this happen, Mr. Speaker, without a nonseverability clause, we will be right back where we are today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. Levin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the speakers on the other side are, of course, very fast and loose with facts and with innuendo. The White House has never said they violated any campaign law during the last election. The only person convicted of violating the campaign law in the last 2 years is the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), a Republican Member of this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will place a reasonable timeframe on consideration of campaign finance reform. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following extraneous material for the Record: Previous Question for H. Res. 458-Campaign Finance Reform Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes, in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to House Resolution 442, each amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in House Report 105-545 shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in section 2 of this resolution. Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider the amendment numbered 30 in House Report 105-567 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute numbered 13 by Representative Shays of Connecticut if offered by Representative Maloney of New York or Representative Dingell of Michigan. All points of order against that amendment are waived. (b) After disposition of the amendments in the nature of a substitute described in the first section of this resolution, the provisions of the bill, or the provisions of the bill as perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute finally adopted, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours. Subject to subsection (c) no other amendment to the bill shall be in order except amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. (c) It shall not be in order to consider an amendment under subsection (b) carrying a tax or tariff measure. Consideration of each amendment, and amendments thereto, described in subsection (b) shall not exceed one hour.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). I happen to have the view that what we are doing here is very serious and that we should treat everything that is done here today as on the level. We should vote for the things that we think are important. And if we feel strongly about a subject, we should vote in favor of it and we should vote as if what we are doing this week and next week actually has a chance to become law, not that we are posturing but that we are looking to the point of if this becomes law, how does it work and what is the best way for it to work. Mr. Chairman, the issue of nonseverability is one of the highest importance in this debate. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that the provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 relating to the use of personal funds by a candidate to fund a campaign and on overall campaign expenditures were unconstitutional. The court held that these provisions placed direct and substantial restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected first amendment rights. At the same time, the court upheld the limitations on contributions to candidates. In so doing, the court dismantled a carefully crafted package, each part dependent upon the other to reform the way campaigns were, in the 1970s, financed. And so, Mr. Chairman, we are left with limits on how much a candidate can receive in contributions, but no limits on what wealthy candidates can spend on their own campaigns, or the total amount that a candidate can spend regardless of source. That, Mr. Chairman, is how we got to where we are today. In the event that the package proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) passes, and I intend to vote for it on final passage, in the event that it passes, the court could very well dismantle this package by finding that the ban on soft money or the limitations on groups or individuals making independent expenditures are, in fact, unconstitutional. What we would be left with is another hodgepodge of campaign expenditure limitations that in essence will leave us in the same difficult situation that we find ourselves in today. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment to add a nonseverability clause to this legislation. A nonseverability clause will ensure that if one part of Shays-Meehan is found unconstitutional, the whole package will be nullified. There is little reason to pass legislation which may ultimately end up looking like a piece of Swiss cheese. This should be a take or leave it proposition, and addition of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California to this bill will assure that either the whole package or no package will ultimately be the law of the land. To do otherwise risks that we suffer from the law of unintended consequences. We could wind up with the worst provisions of Shays-Meehan with the best provisions of Shays-Meehan being stripped out by the Supreme Court. If we really believe in campaign reform, we should support a package that hangs together, a package where every part of it is necessary for real reform, and we risk being left with only half a package if we do not insert a nonseverability clause. Mr. Chairman, legislating is serious business. We should assume that the bill we are debating tonight will actually become law. And if it actually becomes law, it will be totally unfair to have this provision remain in part because the Supreme Court strikes down the best portions and leaves us with the worst. I ask that Members vote in favor of the Thomas amendment.